Do Mormons accept Muhammad, or do Muslims accept Joseph Smith?

[LuisDantas]

This assumption either means that you already assume that neither one of them is really a revelation from God, since you called it "tradition". Which would require an evidence on your behalf to prove that neither christianity nor Islam was really a revelation from God to true prophets.

That is not correct. Calling Judaism, Christianity and Islam traditions in no way implies anything about the truth of their revelations. All that it implies is that they have been maintained through various generations of keepers of some sort. Which is true of all three religions, at least according to themselves.

Or you actually have no idea what Islam or the Quran states. Where exactly does it say in the Quran that Islam came out of the "christian tradition" whatever that means?

Sura 19, for one particularly visible example.

Or better, yet:

Qur'an 3:55. “And when Allah said: O Isa, [Jesus] I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.”

And

Qur'an 4:155–159. “Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened — Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few —
And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.”

Or to make it easier, please explain what do you mean by "came out of", and what do you mean by "christian tradition"?

I'm a bit surprised by your questions, myself. Christianity is refered so strongly and so emphatically in the Quran that I'm not even sure I understand what you are asking.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry I can not trust you. Buddah is more of legand then Jesus of nazarath. 3 scriptures, 3 historis, 3 communities confirm his prophethood and existance. NONE for Buddah!



They had no divine scriptures and are not recognised as even having a known messenger. Basically they are nothing, gone with the winds. Where the Aztecs and Inuit people TODAY?

They are not trying to feed me nonsense, which is already an advantage that they have.

Neither are they claiming that people not of their legends "are nothing, gone with the winds".

Gee. Is that how people think after they adopt the loving religion of submission to God? Really?

For that matter, and out of curiosity, how do you explain the existence of people not of the book? Who created them?

Because each validates the next and confirms the previous. But none validates Buddah nor confirm him!

That might be a problem, I guess. Except that it is not. Why are you so dead set in disregarding anything not mentioned in Abrahamic scripture? That is just, well, silly.

At least we do not bow down to statues. That is simply not going to happen.

Are you afraid of statues?

 

[Badran]

That is not correct. Calling Judaism, Christianity and Islam traditions in no way implies anything about the truth of their revelations. All that it implies is that they have been maintained through various generations of keepers of some sort. Which is true of all three religions, at least according to themselves.



Sura 19, for one particularly visible example.

Or better, yet:

Qur'an 3:55. “And when Allah said: O Isa, [Jesus] I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.”

And

Qur'an 4:155–159. “Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened — Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few —
And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.”




I'm a bit surprised by your questions, myself. Christianity is refered so strongly and so emphatically in the Quran that I'm not even sure I understand what you are asking.

Of course we acknowledge christianity. I'm not surprised you miss understood me, but he knows what i mean.

We acknowledge both christianity and judaism and Moses and Jesus, as true revelations from God that has been sent to true prophets. However, we also believe that they have been corrupted through time (no disrespect intended, just clarifying our belief) and that Islam was God's last message to humanity through it's last assumable prophet according to our belief, Muhammad (pbuh). So, of course there is common grounds between us and christianity and judaism, however that doesn't mean we came out of christian tradition whatever that means.

I assure you, his intention was implying one of the options i said, that's why he said: "Yes, Islam came out of the Christian tradition, even if some will say otherwise.".

 

[LuisDantas]

We acknowledge both christianity and judaism and Moses and Jesus, as true revelations from God that has been sent to true prophets. However, we also believe that they have been corrupted through time (no disrespect intended, just clarifying our belief) and that Islam was God's last message to humanity through it's last assumable prophet according to our belief, Muhammad (pbuh).

That's how I have learned it, too.

So, of course there is common grounds between us and christianity and judaism, however that doesn't mean we came out of christian tradition whatever that means.

Uh?!? You explicitly claim to share most of their concepts, basically all of their prophets, and even to be correcting the course of their own revelation, yet you also refuse to recognize the link to their tradition?

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how that can be.

I assure you, his intention was implying one of the options i said, that's why he said: "Yes, Islam came out of the Christian tradition, even if some will say otherwise.".

There must be some disagreement here about what the word "tradition" means, then.

 

[Badran]

Uh?!? You explicitly claim to share most of their concepts, basically all of their prophets, and even to be correcting the course of their own revelation, yet you also refuse to recognize the link to their tradition?

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how that can be.

There must be some disagreement here about what the word "tradition" means, then.

Yes, we share it, but because all three come from the same source, {God}. Not because on of them was affected by the other.

 

[LuisDantas]

I must side with Senedjem here. His claims in this thread are clear and well-supported.

Yours I either can't understand at all or simply can't agree with.

 

[Badran]

I must side with Senedjem here. His claims in this thread are clear and well-supported.

Yours I either can't understand at all or simply can't agree with.

Allow me to try and make it clear one more time. All Muslims agree that Judaism and Christianity and Islam came from God, the same God. That is why they have so much in common. Why would he say "Even if some say other wise" about something that all Muslims agrees on. Because that is not what he meant.

He said that Islam came out of the christian tradition, that is not true. That's why Fatihah also told him "there is the claim where is the proof?". Why would we deny such an obvious thing in Quran, and why would he say it in that manner, because he is saying something that we disagree with.

 

[gnostic]

However, we also believe that they have been corrupted through time (no disrespect intended, just clarifying our belief) and that Islam was God's last message to humanity through it's last assumable prophet according to our belief, Muhammad (pbuh).

I simply don't believe much of what the bible (or the BoM) say.

However. To date, since I have been a RF member here, no Muslim have yet to back up their claims that the bible has been corrupted. When ask to provide books or passages of where the text has been corrupted, there has been nothing but silence, and requests for validation of such claims have been continually ignored.

Saying the bible is corrupted is one thing, but providing evidences seemed to elude the Muslims as much as they have dodge valid requests to provide evidences of.

 

[LuisDantas]

What did he mean then?

I'm sorry, but I just can't think of any meaningful sense in which it could be denied that Islam is derived from Christianism. I simply don't know what you and Fatihah mean when you say that it is not the case.

 

[Badran]

I simply don't believe much of what the bible (or the BoM) say.

However. To date, since I have been a RF member here, no Muslim have yet to back up their claims that the bible has been corrupted. When ask to provide books or passages of where the text has been corrupted, there has been nothing but silence, and requests for validation of such claims have been continually ignored.

Saying the bible is corrupted is one thing, but providing evidences seemed to elude the Muslims as much as they have dodge valid requests to provide evidences of.

Yes this is true. If someone said that as an argument, he must support it by evidence.

There is two things you should put in mind though:

1) Since i joined RF, i have never attempted to prove anybodies belief to be wrong, i'm here for different reasons. So, when i say that sentence, i only say it when the subject about our belief about it is brought up, so i can't deny that we believe that. I'm not trying to prove it though.

2) That actually, i don't think anybody is going to be able to provide you with such evidence, not because they won't attempt to, but because it will all come down to the interpretations of the texts, which would leave room for arguments, not facts. I'm sure if it were that easy, someone would have done it by now.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it that hard?

I have learned that Muslim doctrine claims that Jesus was not crucified, for instance. That by itself is a significant divergence from what the (current?) Christian Bible states.

The mere fact that Islam has a different opinion on this matter is at the very least a VERY strong hint that it doesn't trust the Christian teachings in the form that currently exists.

 

[Badran]

What did he mean then?

I'm sorry, but I just can't think of any meaningful sense in which it could be denied that Islam is derived from Christianism. I simply don't know what you and Fatihah mean when you say that it is not the case.

Here is what we mean:

They all came from one source, none of them has been affected by each other, the only reason for the similarities, is that they come from the same God. None of them is derived from each other, there is no talking rules from each other, or adopting ideas, these are the rules from God, the same God that made the three. That is why there is so much similarities.

As for what he means, i won't be bad intentioned, but putting in mind the way he worded the sentence, and that he said "even if some say otherwise", and the fact that he has been making a lot of threads against Islam, i must admit i'm inclined to think the worse. But, i'll wait till he clarifies what he meant, so that i don't be unfair.

 

[Badran]

Is it that hard?

I have learned that Muslim doctrine claims that Jesus was not crucified, for instance. That by itself is a significant divergence from what the (current?) Christian Bible states.

The mere fact that Islam has a different opinion on this matter is at the very least a VERY strong hint that it doesn't trust the Christian teachings in the form that currently exists.

This is true, it is easy to see that we disagree with some of the teachings of the Bible or christianity in general.

But what gnostic meant, is that we should give an evidence proving that the claims in the bible are wrong, or that the bible has been corrupted. Which is something i don't want to do, and something that i personally think can't be done all that easily.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here is what we mean:

They all came from one source, none of them has been affected by each other, the only reason for the similarities, is that they come from the same God. None of them is derived from each other, there is no talking rules from each other, or adopting ideas, these are the rules from God, the same God that made the three. That is why there is so much similarities.

That would still make Christianity a strong influence on Islam, however.

Albeit indirectly, so to speak, by way of sharing the same God.

And of course, that would still make Judaism, Christianity and Islam traditions. Not only that, but legitimate traditions each, at least at their early times.

 

[Badran]

That would still make Christianity a strong influence on Islam, however.

Albeit indirectly, so to speak, by way of sharing the same God.

Why? I can't see that at all.

The 3 have been influenced or in other words made by God. He made them all.

That is why they have similarities, because they come from the same God. The only thing is that christianity is prior to Islam, that's it. That doesn't mean it was influenced by it. Other wise the same could be said for the three. "Christianity was derived from judaism, and Islam was derived from christianity". Which is not true.

How does it apply? I don't get it.

 

[LuisDantas]

We all are influenced by those that came before us. For instance, we inherit their languages.

Islam inherited many concepts from Christianity. Even if it happened because God had to bring up a new Revelation because the Gospels weren't well preserved, it is still true that there are Christian concepts galore in the Quran.

Apparently I am giving that inheritance far more weight than a Muslim would.

 

[Badran]

We all are influenced by those that came before us. For instance, we inherit their languages.

Islam inherited many concepts from Christianity. Even if it happened because God had to bring up a new Revelation because the Gospels weren't well preserved, it is still true that there are Christian concepts galore in the Quran.

Apparently I am giving that inheritance far more weight than a Muslim would.

How can i inherit something from someone, if he doesn't posses it. It is not rules that are only associated with christianity. It is God's rules, which he put in three different scriptures in three different times. Also, if that was the case, then Islam is derived from both christianity and judaism, not only christianity, since Judaism is also prior to Islam.

And yes the christian concepts galore the Quran because they share the same author. That is it.

Also, the concept you and i are discussing now is not what he was talking about, because he already implied in another thread that he might agree with the concept that the Quran was affected by human work. So, i'm almost certain that his intentions, are not what we are talking about here.

 

[gnostic]

2) That actually, i don't think anybody is going to be able to provide you with such evidence, not because they won't attempt to, but because it will all come down to the interpretations of the texts, which would leave room for arguments, not facts. I'm sure if it were that easy, someone would have done it by now.

Which is why I don't follow any religion.

To me, believing anything facts, is a big no-no for me. If I am to believe in something, I have to know if it is true, first, before I can believe it to be true. I required real evidences before believing. And since there are no evidences of god(s), angels, demons, djinns, then I put them all in the supernatural boat that contained fairies, ghosts, ghouls and goblins, unicorn, etc.

That's the difference between my agnostic and everyone else's belief....and most religious people can't distinguish the difference between "knowing" and "believing", because they often see it as one and the same. I simply don't trust "faith" and "faith alone".

 

[LuisDantas]

Gosh. I would be a lousy Muslim if I ever attempted to become one, Badran.

I just can't bring myself to think of things as coming directly from God. For me it is a given that any scripture is affected by human work, if not of pure human authory to begin with. There is no other possibility.


Yes, Judaism is clearly an influence in Christianity. The mechanics of it are not very similar to those of the influence of Christianity on Islam, however.

 

[Badran]

Which is why I don't follow any religion.

To me, believing anything facts, is a big no-no for me. If I am to believe in something, I have to know if it is true, first, before I can believe it to be true. I required real evidences before believing. And since there are no evidences of god(s), angels, demons, djinns, then I put them all in the supernatural boat that contained fairies, ghosts, ghouls and goblins, unicorn, etc.

That's the difference between my agnostic and everyone else's belief....and most religious people can't distinguish the difference between "knowing" and "believing", because they often see it as one and the same.

If you have seen my posts anywhere concerning this matter you would realize that i don't disagree with the idea you are talking about here.

One thing though, we call it our believe {faith}. That's what i call my believe, because it is the belief in something that has no evidence. Most theists here that i have seen so far, aside from a few, acknowledge what you said here.